Bush Lied: The Devil In the Details

... dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

"Is Keith Olbermann the Future of Journalism?" the American Journalism Review asked last year. The piece quoted Chicago media critic Phil Rosenthal saying Olbermann "flows from funny to poignant in connecting the seemingly random dots of a day's events, important and trivial, steadfastly clinging to basic tenets about what is and what isn't news without being bound to traditional approaches." He's right about Olbermann loosening the vise of tradition, which can be a good thing. And Olbermann doesn't just flow funny, at times he hemorrhages funny. But poignancy? Connecting random dots? "Steadfastly clinging to basic tenets about what is and what isn't news"?

Get a grip. The man's a big ham.

If only his over the top antics were the most serious problem with Olbermann. It's one thing to lighten up the evening news with a little banter. It's another thing entirely when your news coverage becomes so one-sided that you become the in-house network of Barack Obama:

"There's a huge difference between rooting for one side in a Democratic primary, and another one to take sides in a general election and go out and openly root for a candidate. You can't do that," said the insider. "You think Russert is going to put up with that? Election night coverage in November with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann?

"The key is his willingness to quit," says our source about Olbermann. "And he means it. He has convinced management of that. They are convinced that he will walk. He behaves like a man who has nothing left to lose. He is not central to MSNBC, he is the center of the MSNBC ratings strategy. We hang the entire schedule on him."

Early on in the MSNBC coverage last night, Andrea Mitchell mentioned that in the venue of Hillary's speech, as it was in the basement of Baruch College in an auditorium of sorts, there was no cell or blackberry coverage. Olbermann ran with it and came up with this theory:

And one is almost forced to ask whether they picked this particular venue with no TV monitors and cell phone or blackberry service so that nobody there would know that 54 minutes ago, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois had become the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.

Yeah, that's probably what happened.

I suppose next you'll be trying to convince us of some cockamamie story like there were connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Ideologically, political liberals give the least pessimistic assessment of reporters, but even 50% of those on the political left see bias. Thirty-three percent (33%) of liberals believe most reporters try to be objective. Moderates, by a 65% to 17% margin, see reporters as advocates, not scribes. Among political conservatives, only 7% see reporters as objective while 83% believe they are biased.

Given these results, it’s not surprising that 76% of voters believe the media has too much power and influence over elections. Just 3% believe the Fourth Estate has too little influence while 16% say the balance is about right.

Only in Amerikkka. What a country: it's enough to bring a tear to Michelle Obama's eye.

Posted by Cassandra at June 9, 2008 07:11 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2187

Comments

Cass,
I think you are bitterly clinging to former notions (now in a Post Modernist Age, how double-plus ungood!) about the need for truth, honesty and objectivity.
Let your emotions flow! Show us your passion! Let your anger lead you to the Dark Side young Skywalker (oops! mixed a metaphor there).

I watched about 30 seconds of "Countdown!" the other night (about my weekly tolerable dose), and I couldn't believe how BIG Keith Olbermann's face was on the TV screen. Wow. Talk about an 'extreme close-up!' Or maybe it's just his big head. :)

Interesting how the whole NBC New Division has prostituted themselves. And that, I think, is the shape of things to come.

So, is it lying when you act in good faith in bad information? Everyone, including those who opposed the Iraq war thought Saddam had WMD's. This is just another example of election year posturing.

I have no idea if Olberman is the future of our news media since I'v never seen him. I quit watching network news(and all their other programs) during the 04 election. For me a bigger question is, does the American (and western) news media have any future? Since they have lost credibility and the faith of their audience, I'd say they don't have a future. It would take a lot at this point for me to trust them again any time soon.

> your news coverage becomes so one-sided that you become the in-house network of Barack Obama:

Contrast, BTW, Fox firing a minor employee for openly supporting McCain, IIRC, about 4-5 months ago. Everybody on the left claims Fox is neither fair nor balanced, but they are the only ones who have made it clear that their reporters aren't to openly support a candidate.